Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD
The protection offered by the common law in this area has, by
comparison, been of a limited nature.”
7.
AFR is another new and powerful technology which has great potential to be
put to use for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of
suspects or offenders and the protection of the public. Its use by public
authorities also gives rise to significant civil liberties concerns. Using AFR
can involve processing the facial biometric data of large numbers of people.
The raw power of AFR - and the potential baleful uses to which AFR could be
put by agents of the state and others - underline the need for careful and ongoing consideration of the effectiveness of that framework as and when the
uses of AFR develop. The judgment in this case is directed specifically to the
way in which the technology has been used to date by SWP, in the form of a
pilot project known as “AFR Locate”. Put very shortly, AFR Locate involves
the deployment of surveillance cameras to capture digital images of members
of the public, which are then processed and compared with digital images of
persons on watchlists compiled by SWP for the purpose of the deployment.
The debate in these proceedings has been about the adequacy of the current
legal framework in relation to AFR Locate.
The Parties
8.
The Claimant is Edward Bridges, a civil liberties campaigner who lives in
Cardiff. He brings this claim supported by Liberty, the well-known
independent civil liberties membership organisation. The Defendant is the
Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Heddlu De Cymru). SWP is the
national lead on the use of AFR in policing in the UK and has been
responsible for conducting trials of the technology since mid-2017.
9.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for policing
nationwide and has concern for the development and lawful use of technology,
such as AFR, which has the potential to assist in the prevention and detection
of crime. The Secretary of State has provided funding to SWP to develop
AFR and has published a Biometrics Strategy1 and created an Oversight and
Advisory Board to co-ordinate consideration of the use of facial images and
AFR technology by law enforcement authorities.
The Information
Commissioner has specific statutory powers and responsibilities under the
Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”)2, and had like responsibilities under
the predecessor legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA 1998”).
The Surveillance Camera Commissioner is the statutory regulator of
surveillance cameras. He has specific powers and responsibilities under s.34
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PFA 2012”) with regard to
encouraging compliance with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice,
reviewing its operation and providing advice about the Code of Practice. His
responsibilities include, in particular, regulating the use of surveillance
cameras and their use in conjunction with AFR technology.
1
2
Home Office Biometrics Strategy (June 2018)
Part 5 and Schedules 12 and 13 of the Data Protection Act 2018